Are we past the point of no return with War MM?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

, precisely the inverse of what the forum thinks. .

---

Not all the forum...#Fridaysmugface:)

https://forum.supercell.com/showthre...in-CW-MM/page3

-----

Here's my Theory about the 'Recent War Performance' /Win streak checkbox. It's based upon Skrags logic, which sometimes leaves a little to be desired, but hey, i'll go with it....


In the beginning - the Dev team are sat round a table and agree that implementing this checkbox from scratch is a good idea!
The question is .... Why?

This is where the logic comes in....#sigh...

The SC team want to encourage Clan Wars participation as much as possible, because by it's nature, and the desire of players to gem their Hero upgrades, it is extremely profitable for SC.

It follows therefore that there are only 2 main groups of players that are feeling demotivated to participate in random wars (I'm excluding the players that don't like war full stop!)

First Group - above average players/clans up to Elite War clans who are bored with random 'farm wars' as they just aren't competitive, and they just don't enjoy them.

Second Group - below average players/clans who lose a lot, and just don't enjoy the experience (understandably) and feel demotivated to keep warring.

Assuming the above (big ask I know!!XD), lets focus on that First Group. The good/elite clans now have friendly wars, CWL, NDL, type wars to fulfil their lust for competition. Even if they roll a random war every now and again, and get a farm war, it's not that big of an issue these days.
What about the 'above average' clans? I'd put my own clan in that bracket tbh. Win more then they lose etc. Do these kind of clans feel demotivated to war by matching poor clans? Generally (not always), I'd say probably not. A wins a win for most of us. Keeps moral up, and most players don't mind an easy war every now and again.
In summary, I don't feel that this 'First Group' are demotivated to war, because of the reasons set out above.

So, what about that Second Group? The clans that lose a lot. It's easy to say, that these players should practice more, or take the time to learn good strategies (lets talk Gowipe!), but the reality is that maybe they just don't have the time or inclination to do so.
To me this is the biggest area where players get demotivated to war.

For this reason, I have arrived at the conclusion that this is the main reason for the 'Recent war performance' checkbox. It's not for the clans that win, but to help the clans that lose.
Let us not forget that for every war won, a war is also lost. Mathematically, any clans with current win streaks (of any size) are actually within the minority of clans warring.

Summary (tldr)

While I'm often found sticking up for the 'pick up and play' casuals (which I accept), my logic( :facepalm:) suggests that this checkbox is far more prevalent for the losing clans, than the winning ones!:)

---
Of course I could be completely wrong....lets be honest, it wouldn't be the first time would it?XD
Skrags:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrags

While I'm often found sticking up for the 'pick up and play' casuals (which I accept), my logic( :facepalm:) suggests that this checkbox is far more prevalent for the losing clans, than the winning ones!:)

---

It's not something we're going to prove, there'd be no forum evidence if it were true. Clans that lose 4 in a row (random number chosen) are decidedly underrepresented here. They're also the least sophisticated about the MM and would be unlikely to notice a mechanic like that. So we won't get first-hand accounts but its VERY plausible.

As for sticking up for the casuals, that's a mindset that helps to understand how SC sees things though it can be taken too far. Sniping was a big help to casuals after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

It's not something we're going to prove, there'd be no forum evidence if it were true. Clans that lose 4 in a row (random number chosen) are decidedly underrepresented here. They're also the least sophisticated about the MM and would be unlikely to notice a mechanic like that. So we won't get first-hand accounts but its VERY plausible.

As for sticking up for the casuals, that's a mindset that helps to understand how SC sees things though it can be taken too far. Sniping was a big help to casuals after all.

---

Our clan never sees this behaviour. We rarely have a losing streak. I don't think the MM can tell the difference between a clan that won 19 in a row and then lost and a clan that won 10, lost 1 and won 9 more. recent performance for those two clans would be the same mathmatically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TankSinatra

It's not something we're going to prove, there'd be no forum evidence if it were true. Clans that lose 4 in a row (random number chosen) are decidedly underrepresented here. They're also the least sophisticated about the MM and would be unlikely to notice a mechanic like that. So we won't get first-hand accounts but its VERY plausible.

---

Here is some second hand info instead.

We face those clans from time to time, and every time that happens they have extreme advantages in weights. It would seem that they get a % weight reduction while getting matched.

Here is our current match against a clan that lost 5 out of their last 7 wars.

Number of grand wardens:
us - 2
them - 3

Number of infernos:
us - 4
them - 12

Hope this brings some new information to the table?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dorsan

Here is some second hand info instead.

We face those clans from time to time, and every time that happens they have extreme advantages in weights. It would seem that they get a % weight reduction while getting matched.

Here is our current match against a clan that lost 5 out of their last 7 wars.

Number of grand wardens:
us - 2
them - 3

Number of infernos:
us - 4
them - 12

Hope this brings some new information to the table?

---

But how do heroes compare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

But how do heroes compare?

---

Total king levels:
us - 275
them - 140

Total queen levels:
us - 271
them - 117

So yeah, this just might be heroes vs infernos. I didn't really check the royals (mainly because it takes time to add them up).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dorsan

Total king levels:
us - 275
them - 140

Total queen levels:
us - 271
them - 117

So yeah, this just might be heroes vs infernos. I didn't really check the royals (mainly because it takes time to add them up).

---

whats the number of THs v THs.
Do you have lots of 9s against their 10s?

Here is some evidence, My family clan has a couple of 3 loss streaks. The wars right after them we won:

55* with 93.25% destruction to 45* with 75.2% destruction

68* with 93.00% destruction to 58* with 84.52% destruction


Most of our wars are won or lost by 1 or 2 stars or decided by destruction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigtone2001

whats the number of THs v THs.
Do you have lots of 9s against their 10s?

---

You can't really judge anything based on TH vs TH because we got a pretty weird setup. But if you want to know, well here is the breakdown:
th11 - 2/3
th10 - 12/10
th9 - 2/3
th8 - 1/1
th7 - 0/0
th6 - 0/0
th5 - 0/3
th4 - 3/0

So, we got 2 extra th10s, they got 1 extra th11 and 1 extra th9 and then there is a difference on the bottom. But one of our th10s has no offense, only barbarians and only 2 of our th10s have infernos. We do have a huge advantage on hero levels, they have a huge advantage in defensive weights. This is a mismatch in our favor regardless of the infernos, I doubt they have any chance at all to even get close to winning this war.

I think giving an option of 1 or 2 attacks per base would keep the regular clans from battling engineered clans. Regular clans would have to choose 1 attack per base and make every base count. That would let clans choose which group they wanted to battle in.